“Universities were highly decentralized, less dependent on government money,” explains Christopher Loss, a historian at Vanderbilt University. “They feared that federal funding would lead to interference in the research process itself and perhaps corrupt the pursuit of truth in some profound way.”
But World War II changed all that and marked the beginning of the federal government entrusting and deeply investing in universities to conduct research and development.
“The urgency of the war effort sent federal dollars into the system in order to produce the research and the wartime discoveries that we needed,” says Loss. “That was the beginning of a publicly subsidized and funded research economy that we have today.”
Shalin Jyotishi, managing director of the Future of Work and Innovation Economy Initiative at New America, a left-leaning think tank, agrees.
“The government-university-industry partnership built the American economy in the 20th century,” he said. “Everything from the iPhone to GPS technology to fortified vitamin D has had its roots in federally funded research.”
By 2021, the federal government gave colleges and universities about $180 billion annually across dozens of federal agencies, according to the Government Accountability Office.
But President Trump has said that some universities no longer deserve such money because of widespread political bias that the administration sees at these institutions. In the letter from the federal antisemitism task force announcing the latest research cuts to Harvard, officials claimed that Harvard’s campus “has become a breeding ground … for discrimination” and that the university’s leaders have “forfeited the school’s claim to taxpayer support.”
Letters from the federal agencies to Harvard said the grants “no longer effectuate agency priorities.”
The crusade against universities didn’t come out of nowhere. On the campaign trail, Trump talked about using federal funds as leverage to root out what he saw as communist indoctrination and woke liberalism at elite colleges.
What the future looks like may, to some degree, involve the courts.
Harvard is suing to block the federal funding freeze and has updated its lawsuit to include the most recent cuts. The university claims that the administration’s moves are unlawful and that the cuts threaten academic freedom and First Amendment rights.
A trial is set to begin in July.
“The last four months or so have forced those of us that work in higher education to confront the fact that we’re heavily dependent on taxpayer dollars,” says Loss. “One definition of a university is that it’s a charity, relying on other people’s money. The federal government has been one of the biggest and most important patrons. In exchange, of course, our nation has received really important discoveries and groundbreaking research that improves the human condition.”
Those groundbreaking discoveries, as well as the way government investment has benefited from the exchange, has drawn the attention of other nations.
“American research universities have been the envy of the world for a reason,” says Jyotishi. “China and other competitors of the United States are borrowing from the American playbook for innovation. They’re doubling down and increasing investments in R&D.”
Jyotishi says the biggest worry is that if the government gets out of this business, there won’t be anyone else to step in.
He says the private sector can and should play more of a role in helping universities commercialize university research, but he doesn’t expect industry to replace the federal government.
Why industry support likely won’t fully replace the government
Sabrina Howell, a finance professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, studies innovation and university research. She can rattle off many examples of how university research didn’t result in just a product or a solution — it resulted in underlying ideas and technologies that went on to shape entire industries and the way we live our lives.
